the infallible wisdom of God will see to be its just and proper recompense, or in what manner his infinite benevolence will act itself out relative to this subject, in his vast moral empire. So that whatever our author may think on the subject, whatever may be the conclusions to which his reasoning may conduct him, I maintain that he is essentially unqualified to judge, and that the deductions of his reason, however valid they may appear to him, are entitled to no confidence, because future punishment, in its relation to the perfections of God, to law, and sin, and the wellbeing of the universe, lies beyond the reach of the human faculties, and any man, who takes upon him by reasoning to determine what will be or will not be the duration of future punishment, will be sure to err. He has no adequate understanding of the principles on which the decision of the question must rest, and no ability to apply those principles so as to arrive at a right result. The author's argument then for giving a limited interpretation to the language of Scripture referred to, is built upon the sand. It cannot be relied upon. Instead of being an argument of extreme cogency, it has no cogency at all. The formidable strength of the language of holy writ remains then unbroken. And after all that is advanced in this ingenious and eloquent epistle, we stand up boldly and say, that sin is so great an evil as to deserve the penalty of the law, involving everlasting punishment; and that such punishment is not only reconcilable with the unbounded goodness of God, but is required by it. And we say this, not because we can make it out by mere reason, but because the language of Scripture teaches it, and no " argument of extreme cogency," or of any cogency, exists for giving that language a limited interpretation. Such is the first general mistake in which our author was involved. He entrusted reason with a subject which it is not able to grasp. And we have seen into what manifest oversights and mistakes he was betrayed by his unfortunate habit of thinking — mistakes which reason itself, under proper direction, might have avoided.

Under the second head, we have found that our author errs still more in the matter of feeling, than in the matter of reason. For

if the noble faculty of reason, in its most improved state, is not competent to judge on so vast and profound a subject, as the just punishment of sin, human feeling is far less competent; and, if it is made our standard in judging of the divine conduct in this concern, it will lead us into many and hurtful errors. Feeling in the most enlightened, sound, and well-balanced minds is unfit to be our guide on such a subject. It is designed and adapted by our Creator for very important purposes, but here it is out of place. And if feeling in the strongest, soundest minds cannot be relied upon as a safe guide in judging of the future punishment of the wicked; how unsafe and perilous is it to be guided by such feeling as that of our illustrious but unhappy author,-feeling so soft, so sensitive, and timid-so incapable of surveying with composure the scene of human suffering even in this world, and still more incapable of thinking with quiet acquiescence of the sentence which the Saviour himself, the Lamb of God, will pronounce upon the wicked at the last day. It was a fundamental mistake for him to suffer feeling to gain such power over him in regard to such a subject; and from this mistake, and the same mistake in regard to reason, the various false conclusions which we have noticed, naturally and necessarily resulted.

Finally. Take care to guard against the obvious and essential mistakes of our author; come to the holy oracles without having your mind prepossessed with the abovementioned errors of reason and feeling, and humbly, and honestly, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, attend to the formidably plain and strong language of the infallible word of God, and you will find no place for doubts and objections, but will seriously and tremblingly believe the fearful doctrine of endless punishment.

LECTURE CIX.

CHRISTIAN ORDINANCES. BAPTISM.

THE word sacraments is commonly used to denote the ordinances or rites of the Christian church. Sacrament originally signified the oath, by which the Roman soldiers bound themselves to obey their commander. When applied to the ordinances of the gospel, it is, I suppose, intended to signify, that those who make use of them promise obedience to Christ. In the Vulgate version of the New Testament, the word sacramentum was employed to translate uvozhgiov, mystery. Thus the word mystery acquired a new sense in the writings of the early Christians. Baptism and the Lord's Supper were called Christian mysteries, partly because under external symbols spiritual blessings were veiled, and partly, perhaps, on account of the secret manner in which they were attended. But I much prefer to call Baptism and the Lord's Supper Christian ordinances, or the positive institutions or rites of the Christian religion. By using these words, we may easily settle the strange controversy which has existed about the number of the sacraments. For the simple question would be, whether this thing or that is divinely appointed to be a standing ordinance in the Christian church.

In a religious ordinance or sacrament, two things are included, the sign, and the thing signified. The sign is outward and sensible. The thing signified is something inward and spiritual, which is represented by the sign, and in our thoughts associated with it. Hence, by a common figure of speech, the name of the sign is

sometimes given to the thing signified. So Christ is called " our Passover," he having been represented by the Passover. In like manner, as the bread used in the Lord's Supper represents or signifies his body, and the wine his blood, the bread is called his body, and the wine his blood. The signification however goes further, and refers to the death of Christ, by which atonement was made, and spiritual blessings procured for his people. By the same figure of speech, the Scripture says of the rock in the wilderness from which water issued for the supply of the Israelites, "that rock was Christ," it being a striking representation of him; and it was said of the two olive trees seen by the Prophet Zechariah, "the two olive trees are the two anointed ones," that is, Zerubbabel and Joshua, who were fitly represented by the olive trees. Some of the early Christian fathers called baptism regeneration, doubtless because baptism was an indication of regeneration, or spiritual cleansing. And the same figure seems to have been used in some passages of Scripture; for example; Ananias said to Paul," arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins," baptism being a sign of such washing. The doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration (so called) and the doctrine of Transubstantiation, rest, so far as I can see, on no better ground than this, that a well known figure of speech, which is frequently used in Scripture and is of very easy interpretation, is most absurdly understood to convey a sense exactly literal.

The benefit of positive institutions or outward rites in religion is exceedingly obvious. It is a striking remark of Chrysostom, that if we were incorporeal beings, God would have delivered his gifts to us naked and incorporeal; but as our soul is connected with a body, he has delivered things intellectual by sensible signs.

God has generally taken things already familiarly known, and appointed them to be signs or representations of the blessings of his goodness. Thus the rainbow, which had always been seen as a natural phenomenon, was made a sign or pledge that the world should not be again destroyed by a universal deluge. It was God's covenant, that is, his promise, or declared purpose, that the world should not be thus destroyed, and the rainbow was appointed

to be a sign to remind us, that such is his covenant, or promise. It is God's purpose and promise to cleanse sinners from moral defilement, and to renew them to holiness. In Heb. 8: 812, this divine purpose and dispensation is represented as a "new covenant," in distinction from the former dispensation, which consisted so much in outward rites and was far less efficacious. It was the revealed purpose of God to bestow more precious blessings, or rather, to bestow spiritual blessings in larger measures. "I will put my laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people. And I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their iniquities will I remember no more." Now this covenant, this gracious design and promise of God to sanctify and pardon sinners, is represented by sensible signs, that is, baptism and the Lord's Supper. By these we are assisted to keep in mind the blessings flowing from the atonement of Christ and from the operation of the Holy Spirit. Our faith in the great mercy of our Saviour and Sanctifier is confirmed, and the blessings of salvation are sealed to us, if we comply with the requirements of the gospel. In other words, believers are in this way assured that those blessings shall be theirs. The seals, as applied to individuals, are evidently conditional, like the general promise of forgiveness and salvation. God promises to pardon and save. The promise is written in the Scriptures and proclaimed by the servants of Christ; and we read it, and hear it. The blessings promised are precious; but they are limited to those who believe. The import of the seals, when applied to individuals, is limited in the same way. Otherwise their import would be untrue. If they gave assurance of forgiveness and eternal life to any, except believers, they would contradict the promises of the gospel. For those promises give assurance of salvation only to believers. The same is true of the outward seals. Baptism and the Lord's Supper no more secure salvation to all who receive them, than the promises secure it to all who read or hear them. The value of the gracious promises of the gospel lies in this, that they give us assurance of forgiveness, on condition of our repentance and faith. Baptism